Last week the House Energy & Power Subcommittee marked up H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. Today, the full House Energy & Commerce Committee will mark up the bill.
Opponents, especially Reps. Waxman, Markey, and Inslee, viciously attacked the bill last Thursday. Their arguments are reviewed in detail at the blog GlobalWarming.Org.
The post concludes with this summary of the Waxman-Markey-Inslee argument as follows:
We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.
The question on limiting of the breadth of power of the EPA to have control over the future of the United States energy policy is one of the most important debates of our time.
h/t to Marlo Lewis
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They are awfully full of themselves aren’t they
“We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels.”
With all due respect, Mr. Inslee, you are wrong about what’s good for America and the world.
What’s good for America and the world is less expensive, renewable, clean energy that doesn’t require massive infrastruture replacement in the way of distribution and consumption.
Your plans would cripple our ability to develop a better energy future by killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs before we have a better goose to replace her. You sir are a moron.
This topic will require some research. If the summary of the WaxMarIns position is accurate then their position is repugnant to the vast majority of Americans.
I think the summation is accurate for the context of the whole climate change discussion and not simply confined to Waxman, Markey, and Inslee.
Those people scare me the most. For the reality is they are not even smart enough to know what they know not. And in this case, it is just about everything.
Irony.
On youtube last year we saw Waxman admit that he had not read the monstrous cap and trade bill.
Wow. Is that about EPA policy, or “progressive” policies in general? A severe case of “Quincy syndrome” if ever I saw it.
“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
This so outrageous. What about their oath to defend the constitution ?
It would seem that something about this must be illegal.
Isn’t there something in the American Constitution about this sort of behaviour? Perhaps it is tucked away at the back somewhere, written with a quill pen taken from a sparrow
[snip – over the top – Anthony]
The sentence immediately before the quotation you cite is: “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows: ”
I think it’s important to point that out that because the words cited are not from Waxman, Markey, or Inslee, but, instead, the author of the blog.
Also, because the EPA’s action is based on scientific findings, by arguing that the EPA should be controlled in the way the current Congress is trying to, is it fair to characterize you argument that the scientific expertise of Congress is superior than that of the EPA and other scientists who have the training and conducted research?
and,
Yeah, right, never mind the constitution, or our right to choose our own destiny. They want to stuff their perspective down our throats. Whether we like it, or not.
sounds like a pretty darn repugnant attitude to me. In the last century, didn’t the Nazis have similar views about Germany ‘and the world’?
It is time for revolution in America. These guys should swing for this even though stupidity is not really a capital crime, or perhaps it is in their case.
It might be time to ask Japan how they feel about power cuts, etc. after their terrible experience. They wish to get back to the 21st cent.
That right there is a justification for a dissolution of our government. These elected officials are saying, “to hell with our government, what we want is more important, we’re doing it anyway.” Honestly, how do they think they can get away with this?
And when I said some time ago that these climate alarmist supporting politicians are using “climate change” to create a dictatorship, I was branded a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
And yet here in black and white from out of their own mouths do they condemn themselves.
IF the alarmists are correct, then even if we reduced our CO2 output to zero, we would still not be able to cool the planet by more than one degree for about 1000 years. Reducing our CO2 output to zero would mean a literal return to the stone age. No more flights, no more cars, no more TV, no more computers, no more JOBS, no more electricity and no more industry.
Even if we did all that, we would not reduce the temperature of the earth. So the tiny amount of change that is being offered by the politicians is nowhere near enough.
They are sacrificing our income, way of life, our homes, jobs, families for NOTHING.
IF the alarmists really believed what they are saying, then they would NEVER even consider getting on a plane to their luxurious climate conferences.
They would be doing all they could to reduce CO2.
The fact is we are not going to reduce CO2 output by the amount that the alarmists are screaming for. That would destroy the economy entirely. So we are going to miss whatever arbitrary timetable for a tipping point they invent.
So we may as well enjoy our guaranteed ride to extinction and relax all the CO2 restrictions. What is the point of a miserable road to hell? We may as well enjoy it. I wanna buy a V12!!!
Besides, we may just discover that the alarmists are wrong, and then find that we saved our economy in the process.
I say we hang these human hating climate alarmists from lamp-posts and let them lead their human depopulation agenda from the front!
ew-3 says:
March 15, 2011 at 7:32 am
“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
This so outrageous. What about their oath to defend the constitution ?
Exactly!!!
IMHO the founders missed the boat by not providing a means to immediately remove from office anyone who refuses to uphold his oath. As a result we have had one constitutional violation after another, going all the way back to the Adams administration and the Alien and Sedition Act.
If EPA had followed the mandates of the CAA, they would not have “found” CO2 to be a pollutant. Their “finding” was politically motivated by the desire to be able to control the use of fossil fuel energy. That same motivation established the IPCC whose “science” the “findings” are based.
It’s the last sentence that worries me and defines what they think.
“Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
Do note that this summary is written by the blog poster, not by the people engaged in the debate.
This kind of far reaching summation can be applied to almost any case where regulatory mission creep pushes the boundaries of what is regulated. In every case, the rule making will fill in a lot of space that the original law left open.
As an interested observer of the American politcal scene, I understand the Constitution is the document that enshrines and defines how politicians must act. To openly defy that which is laid down in the American Constitution must be treason, which I understood to be utterly beyond the pale. Surely these carpetbaggers cannot be allowed to overthrow the Constitution, so who is empowered to stop them. To my mind there seems little point to the Constitution if it cannot be enforced.
I have warned you chaps & chapesses in the colonies before. Watch out for your democracy, it’s a frgile thing & easily taken away in front of your eyes as it has been done over here in the PDREU/EUSR! We can elect a “state” government of any policital hue into the Westminster Parliament, we could elect a Hitler or a Stalin in fact (having said that, despite their revolting & abysmal reputations they at least got things done), it would make no difference as to how & by who we are governed. That’s the EU for you, the only thing the European Parliament in the way of power is to cede more of it to Bruxelles! The EU is driving Global Goverment & it will be the same bodies in charge! Kick your politicians where it hurts, in the ballot box!
You All are missing the point, look at them pictures, aliens thats what.
Hang on now, did they actually say that?
Didn’t President Obama say it would be so much easier being president of China? Then you wouldn’t have to waste time with negotiations.
MikeEE
A lot of guys running countries in Africa subscribe to this “I know what’s best for everybody and damn the constitution” thinking.
It doesn’t usually work out so good.